Why does Rand Paul oppose gay marriage?

[Stannis]

Who said anything about banning anything? You are asking the government to subsidize something with its approval, and I have asked you why. Are you capable of answering a simple question or are you going to continue evading it?

What on earth are you talking about? You expect me to treat your question of "Why is having the government recognize a non-procreative, filthy practice as being equal to what makes society possible so important to people?" as being a legitimate question? Seems more like a fire-and-brimstone rhetorical device than something anyone should take seriously.

 

[Christian Liberty]

No it doesn't.

I do. Homosexual behavior is disgusting and should be suppressed (especially when it is flagrant and open) in any civilized place.

i'm pretty sure HU happns to believe this as well although he didn't actually say so in this thread

 

[William Tell]

CL, this thread is about Ron and Rand's positions.

 

[hells_unicorn]

What on earth are you talking about? You expect me to treat your question of "Why is having the government recognize a non-procreative, filthy practice as being equal to what makes society possible so important to people?" as being a legitimate question? Seems more like a fire-and-brimstone rhetorical device than something anyone should take seriously.

What's fire-and-brimstone about it? The words "God", "Hell", "Judgment" and most of the other biblical terms were not used at any point by me in this conversation. I usually use the word sodomy because this website has a policy regarding the "F" word, and because I don't buy into the pseudo-science behind "homosexuality" so I don't usually employ that term.

As far as using the word filthy (if this is what bothers you so much), I don't think I need to get into what usually goes on in these persons' bedrooms, but the word is befitting the entire concept of mistaking a sewer with a playground. I'm not playing rhetorical games here, I'm asking you a simple question, and if my direct language is a little too harsh for you, the problem here is not with my logic, but with yours.

If you think that the government smiling down on buggery is more important than whether or not we bomb a country, destroy our own economy, and are run by criminals, your priorities are going to be questioned by others. You can either cry about it or deal with it. Your choice.

 

[Brett85]

Hells_unicorn's tone in the post implies that he wants gay marriage to be banned.

Gay marriage never has been banned. Banning something implies that there's some sort of criminal penalty for engaging in that particular activity. There's never been any criminal penalty for a gay couple to have their own private marriage ceremony.

 

[hells_unicorn]

I do. Homosexual behavior is disgusting and should be suppressed (especially when it is flagrant and open) in any civilized place.

i'm pretty sure HU happns to believe this as well although he didn't actually say so in this thread

I tend to approach debates in the various forums here based on the purpose of each and the decorum that usually goes with it. Furthermore, making appeals to the bible while in discussion with atheists, libertines, and other various secular sectarians is usually a waste of time, so I will generally resort to "light of nature" arguments, though sadly even these arguments are deemed superstitious by "rational" people. What is one to do?

 

[cindy25]

it's hard when the base in Iowa is still so crazy. it will change as the old generation dies off.

 

[Southron]

Why do you care about his opinion on homosexual marriage? He has generally taken a decentralist position on the issue.

The fact is that homosexual marriage has been forced on the States and the people. That doesn't sound very libertarian to me.

 

[Christian Liberty]

I tend to approach debates in the various forums here based on the purpose of each and the decorum that usually goes with it. Furthermore, making appeals to the bible while in discussion with atheists, libertines, and other various secular sectarians is usually a waste of time, so I will generally resort to "light of nature" arguments, though sadly even these arguments are deemed superstitious by "rational" people. What is one to do?

Yeah, that's valid and you're right that its really not a great situation.

 

[Spikender]

Government plays a larger role in marriage then many people realize, such as in tax credits and child custody laws. I agree the ideal solution is to get govt out of marriage, but I think we need to be realistic here and admit that won't happen in the foreseeable future. So the best solution is to treat out marriages equally.

We all realize the role Government plays in marriage on this website. Trust me, it's been discussed since its inception and far before this website existed. I'm tired of hearing "we need to be realistic". I guess we need to be realistic and realize that liberty will never see the light of day in America and just let this country police the world, lock up people for all sorts of arbitrary reasons, and listen to bloviators like Obama or Trump rather than seek out people who tell the truth.

We should always work toward our goals with baby steps. That's what the Statists and Marxists do. Shave off the Government's role in marriage piece by piece until there's nothing left.

 

[Sola_Fide]

I like Rand better than all of the other Republicans, but his opposition to gay marriage makes me hesitant to pull the trigger for him. Aren't libertarians supposed to be about getting govt out of people's lives? I would describe myself as a left-libertarian. Is this some political play to get the teavengelicals behind him or Paul's actual beliefs? I remember Ron said back in 2012 that he basically doesn't care if gay marriage is legalized, as long as its done by the states, a position that I quite liked.

If this is the issue that is a deal breaker for you, then it's probably best for you to go campaign for Bernie Sanders.

 

[dusman]

I like Rand better than all of the other Republicans, but his opposition to gay marriage makes me hesitant to pull the trigger for him. Aren't libertarians supposed to be about getting govt out of people's lives? I would describe myself as a left-libertarian. Is this some political play to get the teavengelicals behind him or Paul's actual beliefs? I remember Ron said back in 2012 that he basically doesn't care if gay marriage is legalized, as long as its done by the states, a position that I quite liked.

I think you all need to tone down how you engage new users and guide them to what Rand's position is, instead of being combative, critical and/or condescending to them for where they are in their journey toward libertarian thought. I found this threat quite irritating and the interaction with Stannis pretty damn rude.

Stannis.. sorry.

Rand's position on gay marriage has been that government should get out of marriage all together. His position is that it should be treated as any contract, where two people are free from government regulation and definition all together. It sounds like you may have gotten a different impression?

Often times the position of allowing states to decide is merely a means to an end, though also grounded in 9th and 10th Amendment arguments. By allowing states to decide, it can then more quickly become just an antiquated part of history.

In my opinion, there should be no benefit given by government for being married or not married. That is really only an issue with the present tax system.

 

[Occam's Banana]

Government plays a larger role in marriage then many people realize, such as in tax credits and child custody laws.

People around here realize that fact perfectly well.

That is precisely why so many of us oppose ANY government sponsorship of marriage - including any expansion of the already-existing government-marriage franchise.

I agree the ideal solution is to get govt out of marriage, but I think we need to be realistic here and admit that won't happen in the foreseeable future. So the best solution is to treat out marriages equally.

It is unjust and unfair for the state to grant special privileges to some particular group of people (such as straight marrieds). But the ONLY solution to this injustice and unfairness is to stop granting those special privileges to anyone - it is NOT to increase the number of people to whom such special privileges will be granted. This is why "equality" is such an utterly bogus excuse in this context. Expanding government sponsorship of marriage to include gays does NOT increase "equality" - it merely expands the number of people who enjoy the special privileges of state-sponsored marriage to the exclusion and/or expense of others (such as single people and unmarried couples, regardless of whether they are straight or gay).

It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever to say that the "ideal" solution is to get government out of marriage altogether - but since that "won't happen in the forseeable future," the "best" solution is actually to get the government even more into marriage than it was before. (And this is especially ridiculous given that it will make the "ideal" solution of getting the government out of marriage completely even more difficult and "unforseeable" than it already was.) It's like saying that the "ideal" solution to the problem of government-sponsored welfare programs is to get the government out of welfare completely - but since that isn't going to happen right away, we should get even more people on welfare (in the name of "equality"). That is just completely absurd.

Furthermore, the whole "we need to be realistic here and admit [it] won't happen in the forseeable future" thing is an unsupportable and utterly poisonous attitude to adopt. If the people who supported the legalization of marijuana had been "realistic" back in the 1980s (during the height of the "Just Say No" drug war hysteria) - that is, if they had decided that there was no point in staunchly advocating for the legalization of pot just because it wasn't going to happen in the "forseeable future" - then we wouldn't be seeing the successful liberalization of pot laws that is occurring today.

 

[Stannis]

Ok now I see Rand's position was more nuanced that I originally thought. Thanks dusman and Occam's banana.

 

[WeTheVigilant]

What's fire-and-brimstone about it? The words "God", "Hell", "Judgment" and most of the other biblical terms were not used at any point by me in this conversation. I usually use the word sodomy because this website has a policy regarding the "F" word, and because I don't buy into the pseudo-science behind "homosexuality" so I don't usually employ that term.

As far as using the word filthy (if this is what bothers you so much), I don't think I need to get into what usually goes on in these persons' bedrooms, but the word is befitting the entire concept of mistaking a sewer with a playground. I'm not playing rhetorical games here, I'm asking you a simple question, and if my direct language is a little too harsh for you, the problem here is not with my logic, but with yours.

If you think that the government smiling down on buggery is more important than whether or not we bomb a country, destroy our own economy, and are run by criminals, your priorities are going to be questioned by others. You can either cry about it or deal with it. Your choice.

This is a very good post.

Hey, if you'd like to come onto my podcast to talk about important issues sometime, email me at [email protected] - I'd love to help give a platform to knowledgeable people.

That goes for anyone reading this post as well.

 

[euphemia]

The fact is that homosexual marriage has been forced on the States and the people. That doesn't sound very libertarian to me.

Yes. Especially taking into consideration that Christians, particularly, are being penalized for choosing not to violate the tenets of their faith traditions.

 

[Millennial Conservatarian]

I'm gay and frankly could care less about Rand's position on gay marriage. single issue voting is ridiculous, and Rand Paul is not exactly out there picketing against gay rights. I think he is playing the center (wisely) because he knows the GOP base still opposes gay marriage but if he comes out all Huckabee on us it will destroy his electability. He's walking a thin line but he's at least able to come off as "acceptable" to independents and some liberals who support gay marriage but also aren't single-issue voters.

 

[Ayn Freidman]

The government shouldn't have anything to do with the process of marriage but I do believe that states have the right to say who you can and can't marry. While I support legalization of same sex marriage, I do not support the supreme court decision to make gay marriage a federal law. Where in the constitution does it say that gays can get married? Where does it say that only men and women can get married? A federal ban or legalization shouldn't be possible without an amendment to the constitution.

 

[GabrielleTucker]

An interesting question, perhaps he still lives in the past.

 

[Zussman]

Doesn't he support a gay relationship? Very strange, I've never heard of it. But maybe it's his opinion, but I still don't understand. By the way, I have read a lot of different books and literature about love relationships between people. I also really liked the article about parting on this site https://breakupangels.com/why-man-want-to-come-back-after-a-breakup/ . Well, the fact that he does not support a gay relationship, I think it is absurd, because time is moving forward, and you need to already understand that the old days are over and now everything is different. What do you think?